![gnu octave download windows gnu octave download windows](https://linuxhint.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/23-27.png)
* Figuring out the correct prefix and suffix for the library files * Hacking of the library search path so that you can run the programīefore installing it (not an issue with dlopen).
![gnu octave download windows gnu octave download windows](https://i1.wp.com/unboxing-tomorrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/VOXML-20191026-GNUOctaveWelcomeScreen.png)
It DOES also play a part in the command used to build the libraries. But the command-line that libtool constructs is a fairly standard one consisting of $CC, $CFLAGS, $LDFLAGS, $LIBS, etc, all in the proper order - most of the magic therefore takes place in constructing those variables.Īnd, you've caught me: I can't make any promises about proprietary compilers that I don't have access to. For example, you don't want to pass -fpic to a compiler that doesn't support it but that can be tested with autoconf, with or without libtool. Some of the more basic flags (like -c and -o) are covered by the POSIX description of "cc", so IIRC you're mainly relying on -shared and -fpic. The admins of older systems that I know have all bootstrapped themselves a modern(ish) toolchain, but YMMV. It would be a larger change and it would require testing, obviously. > IMO this is a lesser evil and a bargain for removing the. la file, or implementing and maintaining build rules for the different combinations of compilers and platforms ourselves instead of relying on tools like `libtool`? But I'm not sure which approach would be the better one in the long run: Relying on the layout of the. I'm only comparing the status quo against my most recent patch.
#Gnu octave download windows Patch#
The potential downside to the patch is that some other stray libtool artifacts may be discovered on an obscure platform, and the glob will have to be updated to remove them. Since those artifacts are harmless in the meantime (and may never materialize in the first place), I don't see this as a huge problem, but I'm biased. I think libtool shouldn't be used at all for these *.oct libraries the extra libtool pieces just get in the way. Unless you're targeting systems from the early 90s, $(CC) works fine and gives you only the file you want in the place you expect. > The following naming conventions seem to be used at least by autotools and cmake for "mingw*" targets Losing the automake magic for those libs would hurt a bit, but the corresponding rule can basically be copy & pasted out of the generated Makefile.in. > Afaict from a Google search, the naming conventions are the following for a msvc target (using cmake?).
![gnu octave download windows gnu octave download windows](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jJT3McpMIGA/maxresdefault.jpg)
But the worst thing that can possibly happen is that some unused files get installed until the next release when the rule can be updated. IMO this is a lesser evil and a bargain for removing the. la file parsing from the install-oct target. But I'm not sure if it is the right approach when it comes to portability.
![gnu octave download windows gnu octave download windows](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/25/7a/f7/257af7ea3913c4dcd7628aa9cf167f45.png)
#Gnu octave download windows windows#
The following naming conventions seem to be used at least by autotools and cmake for "mingw*" targets for a library "foo" in their current versions (other naming conventions might be used by other build tools or other Windows targets like e.g. "msvc"):Īll of those are sometimes versioned as e.g. Those naming conventions might be implementation details though.